I'm not surprised that corporations are trying to get money back that they pay out as monthly stipends to Congress members. ABC World News indicated tonight that Newt Gingrich received $30,000. a month from Freddy Mac throughout his tenure and long after he left office. He braggs about it!

How would a government agency or corporation affect sites that produce 100% original material?

I just sent $100.00 to the effort and forwarded the note to over 100 people I know. You all might want to consider sending a few $$$ in and passing this message on to friends and others who recognize your efforts, and trust your reasoning abilities, ( well SCI FI writers and poets hmmmm).

But really, I am not wealthy, by any means. Freedom of the internet is so important to me, and to you, if you think about the implications of this law.

This is like an anti-blasphemy law that was circulating Europe. It's too broad and sweeping in its power.

This is my signature topic I have studied for a while now, part of a bigger overall push towards Big Brother.

And it's a problem because it sounds so "tinfoil-hat" that people will scoff at it. There's this law, the equally ugly ACTA treaty covering the international angle, on and on.

It's real tough, because in a sense writing to congressmen doesn't matter anymore. We're nearing a point where the government doesn't even bother following little things like the Constitution.

Behind the scenes is the problem of why this is even a problem. Why a little industry can threaten the entire internet. A few people on the net would like to see Google buy it out, then use the free songs for its ad-services model.

"Why now?" The internet isn't really that new, not really. It's not like it's 1994 and no one knew what a browser was or such. So with the even crazier amount of money that was flying around in Internet 1.0, why is all this happening now?

I had a theory a long time ago, where I called this the Fishbowl Effect. Remember all those books talking about Global Villages because we were connected? What they all missed was they assumed good intentions. In more detail the Fishbowl theory went that in the 90's it was Exciting, This Is Now! Add a little Christian apocalyptic mood to it all. Yeah, it was a bubble, "the smart people saw that coming".

But instead we now seem to be daring ourselves (and this is a WORLD WIDE problem!!) to race towards total totalitarian control as fast as possible, pushing the most outlandish steps. So now we're finally past the tech Dot Com crash, and what we have now is ... this. Just stuff. It moves around a little bit, Facebook did what MySpace couldn't quite do, maybe we'll get a new entrant. Apple, MS, and Android are doing Mobile Wars. Yay. And ... at the sky-high level ... it's *Boring*. We're Just Doing Stuff. You do your stuff, I do my stuff, but all of that visceral excitement is long gone. So we have a zillion years of nothing to do with ourselves except ... stare at each other in the Fishbowl. And people from small towns know, when you get that bored and start staring at people, mountains of disdain emerge from molehills.

I hate to say it, but sometimes it takes Going Too Far for people to learn. You see, that's the REAL strategy. They keep introducing these awful bills, and it takes hard work to stop them. "Awww. Look, it didn't pass. Let's introduce it again next year." Eventually they tire us out.

Maybe if the entire internet shuts off overnight, people will finally be upset enough to en masse rebel and throw out all of congress/other govt and start over with a pro-rights government.

rick tornello wrote:Tao, How about some similarity to the 1930's Germany, the economy is in shambles, more people out of work and most important, the fear and with fear comes the basic reactions that it generates?

RT

Slight similarity, maybe, but it feels way different. We were dragged into Iraq/Afghanstan "Because it was good to fight da Turrssts" for ten years (!!) and then we found him - wait for it - in Pakistan, and Lo' it stopped being a news theme!

This whole Copyright/TSA/Other campaign is way sneakier than Hitler, it's totally Big Brother/Gulag "you are being quietly watched". I don't see (yet) a charismatic leader rallying anyone to anything.

TaoPhoenix wrote:Slight similarity, maybe, but it feels way different. We were dragged into Iraq/Afghanstan "Because it was good to fight da Turrssts" for ten years (!!) and then we found him - wait for it - in Pakistan, and Lo' it stopped being a news theme!

This whole Copyright/TSA/Other campaign is way sneakier than Hitler, it's totally Big Brother/Gulag "you are being quietly watched". I don't see (yet) a charismatic leader rallying anyone to anything.

How about a new world order..."I'll take a cup of rations and hold the artificial pickles please!

People can't wait to turn every aspect of there lives over to someone else to make all the decisions for them, because they as a people have grown weak and anesthetized to being told what to do.

Some travelers are told, "Step over here so we can take a nude x-ray image of your body" and they do it so as to not be labeled a terriorist.

Or "If you want to work for our company, you must FIRST sign this arbitration agreement which states that if there is a conflict or problem with your employment, you must let an arbitrator (who we pay to give us a favorable decision) decide and must sign on to anything they say or we want hire you.

The days of the slogan, "Have it your way" is long gone to be replaced by "Do what we say or you're a criminal".

What is really happening is selfish people are trying to pass laws to control other people (people other than themselves) for profit motives, not realizing that each successful attempt to control others is moving us all to one world domination in a bloodless (law passing) coup.

Then you all need to reread my stories. Mark, that is an underlying theme.

I see this every day, every day in my job. It's fear that allows peoples to give up the freedoms so hard fought, so much blood lost.And again, Greece, Rome, the USA today, fear.The words I hearclear fear, we must.

And at the same time real politik dictates a cautiona guardprotect so where is the line drawn between the real and the false,fear ?Exhume the past to viewto look at the future.Strength in belief of self?of ideology?

What if we let these imperious fat-cats have what they want -- and then force it down their throats?

Look at the Big Picture. Think about it -- what would it mean to actually enforce such a thing?

How many millions of sites are there on the 'net? Who is gonna monitor all that -- while it changes second by second? And then, what are they going to do to the people they choose out as offenders? If it got a tenth as bad as everybody is saying, there wouldn't be enough cops and lawyers in the Universe to deal with them all.

It could be great for a while -- full employment worldwide . . . of course, everybody would be employed ratting each other out, and nobody would be producing goods and services any more . . . oh, and all that Russian spam would finally go away . . . (NOT!!)

And I'm sure there are thousands of hackers who would just get their rocks off at creating 'offending' sites, just to take them down and put them back up again every couple seconds . . . and randomly emailing links of the dead ones to the DOJ website, screaming, "You need to arrest all the bastards on this list!" I'm guessing that could be done.

What if we let these imperious fat-cats have what they want -- and then force it down their throats?...

Yes, you are making sense, but no, once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to shove it back in again.

For example, it started out about a decade or so ago when Congress wanted ratings on all TV shows. First it started out with a tiny emblem at the bottom or top corner of the screen for about 5 seconds at the beginning of each program.

Then the icons got larger and larger, eventually becoming billboards covering the bottom half of the view screen.

Then they became animated with live action moving images which were on the screen for 10-15 seconds while you're trying to watch the program above it.

Then they started to add sound in the form of sound effects and then dialogue. The fools didn't care that the volume was competing with the program you are watching! After all, you're getting TV for free, so who cares.

Then they started running the live action billboards DURING the program, at least 3-10 times, 10-15 seconds each time during their programing schedule.

Then, free TV became a thing of the past when they outlawed analogue reception and you have to either have at least basic cable tv or some device you put on your TV set. So now, TV is not free anymore AND they still make you pay by putting essentially ads while the program is on, instead of waiting during commercial breaks.

Yes, they have mucked up TV and they're looking for new ways to muck it up more.

One thing about selfish, money grubbing, predatory opportunists, they never, ever admit they are wrong and always blame someone else for the mess they cause.

What if we let these imperious fat-cats have what they want -- and then force it down their throats?

Look at the Big Picture. Think about it -- what would it mean to actually enforce such a thing?

How many millions of sites are there on the 'net? Who is gonna monitor all that -- while it changes second by second? And then, what are they going to do to the people they choose out as offenders? If it got a tenth as bad as everybody is saying, there wouldn't be enough cops and lawyers in the Universe to deal with them all.

It could be great for a while -- full employment worldwide . . . of course, everybody would be employed ratting each other out, and nobody would be producing goods and services any more . . . oh, and all that Russian spam would finally go away . . . (NOT!!)

And I'm sure there are thousands of hackers who would just get their rocks off at creating 'offending' sites, just to take them down and put them back up again every couple seconds . . . and randomly emailing links of the dead ones to the DOJ website, screaming, "You need to arrest all the bastards on this list!" I'm guessing that could be done.

Is there maybe a story in all this?

Am I making any sense?

Nah, as is usual with deals with the devil, there's a slip here. This time it's that you might have been right in the Old Days. But they can just use their computers to enforce the censorship!

Also, they don't have to arrest anyone! It's much cheaper to issue a ticket.

So no, please don't give them the carte blanche and then hope they get tangled. They'll just use our money again to get out of it, and then the whole process gets worse.

People have come to see copyright as a tool of punishment, Europe's technology chief has said in her strongest-yet attack on the current copyright system.

Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Saturday that the creative industries had to embrace rather than resist new technological ways of distributing artistic works. She added that the existing copyright system was not rewarding the vast majority of artists.

Well, maybe I am wrong about all this . . . still, the fat-cats are cutting their own throats and they don't even see it.

They paid Congress to give them tax rebates to move our industrial jobs to Walmart, I mean China -- so now we have 14 million people out of work -- who are subsequently NOT buying their products . . . and the only thing China is buying from us is our government bonds . . .

They paid the legislators to deregulate the banking industry, then built up the housing market and knocked it down -- now the banks are stuck with countless properties that they can't sell because the unemployed -- now homeless -- can't afford a place to live . . .

Look what the OWS is doing -- people in droves are so pissed off that they're pulling their money out of the BailOut Banks and putting it into credit unions. I know, it won't make a noticeable difference, but it may not take much more of this to get a REAL boycott going (something we haven't seen) . . . or maybe a good old-fashioned torch-and-pitchfork parade.

They're being awfully hypocritical, too -- they want to scream "Infringement!" every time they see their name in a place that THEY didn't put it -- but when THEY put their name on something, they call it "product placement." Ever see a Tommy Hilfiger shirt? You can read it from a block away, and the buyers are paying for the privilege of advertising the stuff. I think this could actually be a good counter-argument for anyone getting sued for infringement -- "Your Honor, they should be delighted at the free advertisement they're getting -- in fact, THEY should be paying ME. This isn't a shirt, Your Honor -- it's a billboard! Is seeing it accidentally on a website any different from seeing it on the street?"

Internet? Hell, they have pop-up ads that defeat my pop-up blocker . . . THEY can splat their name over the page I'm trying to read, but if I put their name somewhere by accident -- much less obtrusively -- they want to sue me.

I'm at least somewhat serious about that: someone visiting a website and hearing a song they like in the background might well go look it up and buy a copy. It may not happen in reality (though I bet it does), but in the theoretical world of the courts, it's an argument that could at least gum up the works a little for the fat-cats.

This could get ironic, and amusing, in a dire, grim sort of way. BigCorp tries to sue Joe Jobless over his video post: JJ spent nothing to post the vid, and since he's now living under a park bench, has nothing to pay, while BC spent bunches to persecute him. Arrest him? Great, now he has food, shelter, and healthcare -- at taxpayer expense.

China is starting to think our T-notes may not be such a good investment after all . . .

Post by rick tornello » November 20th, 2011, 8:42 amLester you want to see how monitoring can be done?

look at China.

Yeah, but the ones who are just a little savvy have found ways around that.

It's just sad that the scum is rising to the top so fast. We should outlaw paid lobbying . . . and I've been telling people for thirty years that this country is turning into a third-world dictatorship.

I'd move to Canada, but I can't afford it, and they probably wouldn't let me.

I've been doing some thinking about this and it has occured to me that it is not as likely to happen in the way we are concerned about it, at least not at this time in our history for several reasons.

A ban on all copyrighted material would essentially end "You Tube" and greatly restrict Facebook, Twitter and search engines who would then be responsible to police millions of links with copyrighted language in the link itself.

Sure it would be a windfall for lawyers, but there would be such an uprising in the public forum that it would be turned back if ever it became a legal issue.

Maybe some lesser version with specifics toward sites that are making money off copyrighted material might pass into law (as in selling it without permission), but verbal references I'm sure would be protected.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

Meanwhile: with a nod to Lester Curtis, check out this Final Exam question from the Academic Earth edition of a lecture on game theory!

"Question 5. [45 total points] Paid in the USA"Two interest groups, A and B, are lobbying congress about an upcoming bill. Everyoneknows that it is worth $3M to A to get the bill passed into law, and it is worth $2M to B toget the bill to fail."

Meanwhile: with a nod to Lester Curtis, check out this Final Exam question from the Academic Earth edition of a lecture on game theory!

"Question 5. [45 total points] Paid in the USA"Two interest groups, A and B, are lobbying congress about an upcoming bill. Everyoneknows that it is worth $3M to A to get the bill passed into law, and it is worth $2M to B toget the bill to fail."

So, what was the question? Wait -- lemme guess -- "How much will be spent by K Street?"

And, I failed to mention it, but on Blackout Day I was reminded, and went and signed TWO online petitions to stop SOPA. Just my way of giving Disney the finger.